Opposition Brief — Michigan v. Williams

EDITOR'S NOT«

a

THE FOLLOWING PAGES

WERE POOR HARD COPY

AT THE TIME OF FILMING. IF AND WHEN A

BETTER COPY CAN BE OBTAINED, A NEW FICHE

WILL BE ISSURD.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA!

o*

Petitioner-Appeliant

lu

oO

<x -vVs-

a.

~ RONNIE WILLIAMS

N

<= Respondent-A ellee

=

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

LAW OFFICES

975 East Peffers 7

Detrou, Michigan

48°

LAW OFFICES

975 East Jefferson

Detroit, Michigan

48207

(313) $67-2333

NO. 86-1604

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Petitioner,

RONNIE WILLIAMS,

Respondent.

APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The Respondent, RONNIE WILLIAMS, asks leave to file the

attached Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari

without prepayment of costs and to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 46.

Respondent states as follows in support of this motion:

be The Recorder's Court for the City of Detroit foune

Respondent indigent and without means to secure counsel on June

23, 1985.

2 On January 17, 1986, the Recorder's Court for the City

of Detroit found Respondent indigent and without means to secure

counsel for appellate review.

3. A certified copy of Respondent's affidavit of indiqency

is attached pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 46; 18 U.S.C.

Subsection 3006(A)(d)(6).

WHEREFORE, Respondent asks this Honorable Court for leave to

procee 1 ror | 1uveri1s. |

|

|

Resnect f + +

|

|

ITAMTI WENCED -

~fi i FA x Wo , b

T + + AST Ss

vetrolt, +

5 5 > € =< 4

ms =

175 EF Teffers

Detr + MY 4R207

r a 3 Aq - an

Dated: | =, 2d

LAW OFFICES

978 East Je

Detroit, Michigar

48207

LAW OFFICES

978 East Jetferson

Detroit, Michigan

48207

(313) $67-2333

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pas

Ree AP PRR ETOP Ee Pe oko ead Oa aos RA bee ea Seale Eek ae we ee i

COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW......... ]

COUNT mM LM TEE. OF TE CBGBs 6 os eh ECR ORE KEAR OCDE ODS RES DS 1

Bane Lio. ee Lee WUE 5 6 a oes eee Aa ee eee Rede dena ea ee

ARGUMENT:

THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING THAT

RESPONDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY

TRIAL WAS BASED UPON THE CORRECT APPLICATION

OF FEDERAL CASE LAW AND THE PETITIONER'S

ELIANCE UPON FEDERAL CASE LAW IS MISPLACED

Bay LiL eS he KOC AS SSA Ak AE SER RR OR oe Ke 2

ARGUMENT:

THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING THAT

THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL ATTACHES UPON

ARREST WAS BASED UPON THE CORRECT APPLICATION

OF MICHIGAN LAW, WHICH THE PETITIONER FAILS

TO AbUmwoe OR AMALYZE ss casei e eee ccs aac nss eeu 4

RONEN 65GB Se O54 6 aaa ee eo EELS SRA RE Ae OSES OS Ue ee OS EO OY 6

LAW OFFICES

9785 East Jefferson

Detroit, Michigan

48207

(313) 567-2333

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASE PAGE

Barker v. Wingo

407 U.S. 514; 92 U.S. Ct. 2182; 33 L. Ed. 24 101 (1972)....... 5

Dillincham v. United States

493 0:6; GOs. 56 6: Ct. 2092 46 lis. BAe. 24 208: (1971S) sess cine A

Hardy v. United States

Sa Use, Bees Oe Pees SES Fs A 293 CAOGA) a oes ac tek ie waeaee en 5

People v. Den Uye

320 Mich 477: 31 N.W.2d 699 (1948)... ccccscr sera rercesesesece 5

People v. Grimmett

388 Mich 590; 202 N.W.2d 278 (1972), overruled on

other grounds, 390 Mich. 245, 258 CUS Si akass teased acdnatsnaan 5

People v. Fiorini

(on rehearing), 59 Mich. App. 243; 229 N.W. 2d 399 (1975)..... 5

United States v. Kaufman

Re ie Oe OR a ee eee ee ee ree ee ee ee ae ee ee ee 5

United States v. Marion

404 U.S. 307: 92 S. Ct. 455: 30 L. E@. 468 (1971)...e002«. 3,475

United States v. McDonald

456 UsvSs 22 102 6. Ct. 1497: 71 LL. £4. 24 696 (1962) <2 vac vers 4,5

STATUTES

Mich. Gop. taws Ann. § 768.8 occ c cscs an ei secnsessaeaeesdsteas eee 3

CONSTITUTION

CE sg FS V0 oi kc eee ORCA ASSERT EKER EOD EE EAS OD 3

Const. 1963, Art. i, el A re ree ee re Sere eae rer rk ea 3

i

LAW OFFICES

975 East Jefferson

Detroit, Michigan

48207

(313) $67-2333

NO. 86-1604

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Petitioner,

RONNIE WILLIAMS,

Respondent.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION

FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

CHIAMP & WENGER, P.C.

LISA WENGER (P30725

Avplicant to Suprem

975 E. Jefferson

Detroit, MI 48207

(313) 567-2333

cr

\

j

e Cour

Counsel for Respondent

LAW OFFICES

978 East Jefferson

Detroit, Michigan

48207

(313) $67-2333

COUNTERSTATEMENT OF QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

WHERE A 23-MONTH DELAY EXISTS BETWEEN THE ARREST AND

ARRAIGNMENT OF THE DEFENDANT ON FORMAL CHARGES, DOES

THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL ATTACH UPON THE ARREST

(IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED,

INTERROGATED AND RELEASED ON RECOGNIZANCE)?

COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE

On July 13, 1983, defendant was arrested without a warrant

for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance in

violation of Mich. Comn. Laws Ann. Subsection 333.7401(2?)(a),

taken to the police station, interrogated and then released on

recoonizance without a @date to appear in court. In September

1983, after analysis of the substance taken from defendant at the|-

time of his arrest was found to be heroin, a complaint and

warrant for defendant's arrest was issued. In June 1985, while

investigating =’ unrelated matter, the police discovered the

outstanding warrant and again arrested defendant.

LAW OFFICES

978 East Jefferson

Detroit, Michigan

48207

(313) 567-2333

No efforts were made by the police to serve the warrant

between the date of issuance, September 16, 1983, and the date of

the unrelated search in June, 1985.

Following his waiver of preliminary examination, Defendant

successfully moved to dismiss based on lack of sveedy trial.

On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals, in an unpublished

per curiam opinion, held that the right to a speedy trial

attaches upon arrest, and is not Gependent upon whether the

defendant is kept in custody.

The appellate court, then, reviewed the record and conclude?

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in Gdismissince

the charges against defendant.

REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT

THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING THAT

RESPONDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY

TRIAL WAS BASED UPON THE CORRECT APPLICATION

OF FEDERAL CASE LAW AND THE PETITIONER'S

RELIANCE UPON FEDERAL CASE LAW IS MISPLACED

AND MISLEADING

The prosecutor araues that a defendant who is arrested put

not confined [between arrest and arraianment on the formal

charges] does not have a sixth amendment right to a speedy trial.

He contends there is no lecal requirement to brinc the

Defendant to trial after the arrest and issuance of the arrest

warrant and, thus. the speedy trial inquiry is inappropriate.!/ne

so contends, even though he has admitted throughout the

proceedings that the Defendant was arrested in 1983 but not

brought to trial for 23 months.

The Petitioner distinauishs the arrest of Ronnie Williams,

arguing, “that's not an arrest for the purpose of a speedy trial

Ly Transcript of proceedings Recorder's Court for the City of

Detroit, pp. 6, 7.

LAW OFFICES

97S East Jefferson

Detroit, Michigan

48207

(313) $67-2333

=

right” and attempts to set up two standards for arrests: one

which would trigaer the Sixth Anen@nent quarantees and the other

which would not. */There is no such distinction in the law.

The Sixth Amendment provides that “fLiln all criminal

prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and

public trial * * *," US Const, Am VI. In Michigan, the riacht to

a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Michigan Constitution, Const

1963, art 1 $20 and Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 768.1. Althouch

the Sixth Amendment speedy-trial provision has no application

until the putative defendant in some way becomes an “accuse”,

United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 313; 92 S. Ct. 455, 459;

30 L. Ed. 2d 468, 474 (1971), the constitutional richt to a

speedy trial commences upon either formal indictnent or vu;

actual restraint of the accused. 404 U.S. 307, 320.

The Petitioner quotes and emphasizes a passace from Marion

to support his theory that an arrested defendant, who has not

been indicted for formally arraiqned!, must be restrained, or in

| custody, before the riacht to a speedy trial is triagered. The

reliance upon this passage is misplaced and Petitioner atten ts

to mislead by selectively quoting only a portion of @ section of

the opinion which, when placed in the vroper context, supports

the Respondent's position.

Following the passace quoted by the Petitioner, the Court

stated, “Invocation of the speedy trial provision thus need not

3/

await indictment, information, or other formal charge. But we

2/ Transcript of proceedings Recorder's Court for the City of

Detroit, p. &. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, p. 13.

3/ The court, at fn. 12, quotine from the ABA Standard's

Relating to Speedy Trial, n. 10, supra, at G, defined the

time at which the beginning of the delay period should be

computed as “the date the charce is filed, except that if

a defendant has been continuously held in custody or on

bail or Seven anaes until that date to answer for the

fron the sane criminal episode, then tne time for trial

should commence runnine from the date he was held to

answer." Rule 2.2.(a). (emphasis addec.)

ws

LAW OFFICES

975 East Jefferson

Detrou, Michigan

48207

(313) 867-2333

| decline to extend the reach of the amendment to the period prior

to arrest. Until this event occurs, a citizen suffers no

restraints on his liberty and is not the subject cof public

accusetion; his situation does not compare with that of a

defendant who has been arrested and held to answer." 404 U.S.

307, 321.

Reading this section of the opvinion in its entirety, alona

with fn. 12 of the opinion, it is clear that the Sixth Amendment

guarantee applies to the situation where a defendant is arrested

and released and that it is the actual arrest which causes the

defendant to suffer the restraints upon his liberty that enaace

the particular protections of the sveedy trial provision of the

Sixth Anendment.

Further, in United States v. McDonald, 456 U.S. 1; 102 S.

Ct. 1497; 71 L. Ed. 2d 696 (1982), the court specifically states

that, “in addition to the period after eaiannens, the period

| between arrest and indictment must be considered in evaluatine a

speedy trial clause clain,” citing Dillingham v. United States,

423 U.S. 64; 36 S. Ct. 303; 46 L. Ed. 2d 205 (1975).

In this case, the actual restraint of the accused occurred

_when he was arrested, transported to the station, “booked”, and

interrogated. He was, then, released on recognizance, but held

to answer the criminal charge as evidenced by the fact that the

warrant was never dismissed but was served and prosecuted upon 21

months later. Under United States v. Marion, supra, he was

entitled to a speedy trial which he was denied.

THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING THAT

THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL ATTACHES UPON

ARREST WAS BASED UPON THE CORRECT APPLICATION

OF MICHIGAN LAW, WHICH THE PETITIONER FAILS

TO ADDRESS OR ANALYZE

The prosecu* .r argues that the Michigan Court of Appeals, in

holding that an arrest rather than an arraignment of the accused

———S

|} on formal charges tricgers the Sixth Amendment rignt to sneedy

trial, misconstrues this court's holdinas [in United States v.

| Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 313; 92 S. Ct. 455, 459: 30 L. Ed. 2d 468

474 (1971) and United States v. McDonald, 456 U.S. 1; 102 S. Ct.

1497; 71 L. Ed. 2d 696 (1982) ).

He chose not to analyze, nor even address the Michigan

authority cited in the lower court opinion.

In fact, the lower court based its decision upon a Michican

Supreme Court case which was factually identical to the instant

action. People v. Grimmett, 388 Mich 590; 202 N.W. 2d 278

(1972), overruled on other crounds, 390 Mich 245, 258 (1973). In

Grimmett, supra, the defendant contended that his richt toa

speedy trial was violated by the 19-month delay between his

arrest and his indictment on the charge of assault with intent to

commit murder. 388 Mich 590, 601. The Michigan Supreme Court

held that the right tc a speedy trial attaches to the period of

time between an arrest and an indictment, citine United States v.

Kaufman, 311i F. 2d 695 (CA 2, 1963); Hardy v. United States, 11°

j

| U-S. App. DC 364; 343 F. 2d 233 (1964), then went on to apply the

balancing test, as espoused in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514; 92

| S. Ct. 2182; 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972), to determine whether the

right to speedy trial had been violated.

The above, narrow rule of Grimmett, relied upon by the

Michigan Court of Appeals in this case and dispositive of the

sole issue before this court, was adopted in People v. Fiorini

(on rehearing), 59 Mich. App. 243; 229 N.W. 2d 399 (1975).

LAW OFFICES In the case at bar, the lower court held, further, that the

$7S East Jefferson

Detroit, Michigan

48207

speedy trial right is not dependent upon whether the defendant is

kept in custody. People v. Den Uye, 320 M.ch. 477; 31 N.W. 2a

(313) 867-2333 699 (1948).

The Petitioner failed to address the state authority which,

LAW OFFICES

976 East Jefferson

Detroit, Michigan

48207

(313) $67-2333

independently, is dispositive of the issue in Respondent's favor.

The decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals is correct and is

in conformity with federal and state law: and as such, will

atfect few others tnan the litigants.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent respectfully requests

that this Honorable Court deny the petition for a writ of

certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,

CHIAMP & WENGER, P.C.

BY - (4. ae ~

eds L. CHYAMP ANPT(Pi TSG)

Member of Supreme Cotirt Bar

975 E. Jefferson

Detroit, MI 48207

(313) 567-2333

——*

BY: ee, As (4% (“a Pa

LYSA WENGER OME sy aes

Applicant to Supreme Court Bar

975 E. Jefferson

Detroit, MI 48207

(313) $67=2333

Dated: May 4, 1987

LAW OFFICES

975 East Jefferson

Detroit, Michigan

48207

(313) $67-2333

NO. 86-1604

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Petitioner,

ee

RONNIE WILLIAMS,

Respondent.

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of verjurv

that a copy of Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and

Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari and

Appearance has been served on:

Frank J. Kelly, Attorney General

525 W. Ottawa

760 Law Building

Lansing, MI 48913

Wayne County Prosecutor

1441 St. Antoine

Detroit, MI 48226 ’

by placina said documents in a properly addressed. envelope with

postage prepaid and placina said envelope in the United States

Mail in the City of Detroit, Michigan, on this 4th day of May,

1987. .

Said pleading was filed in the Supreme Court of tne United

States by depositing in the United States Mail on this 4th day of

May, 1987, addressed as follows:

Joseph fF. Spanioi, Jr., Clerk

Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, D.C. 20543

}

AAOL IL Mettopsl Hee tas

¢

Subscribed and sworn to before me

this 4th day of May, 1987

Paw) ee

Wayne County, Michican

My Commission Expires: 2/10/88